I guess you could just use 'creation' - it has been created by something - whether a divine being or an impersonal force like the big bang.
–
neilAug 8 '14 at 11:29

4

@neil, by a strict denotational interpretation, yes, "creation" is applicable. However, the connotation of the word is definitely religious, and carries with it a lot of baggage.
–
Dan BronAug 8 '14 at 13:45

9

When Christians use the term "all of creation," they are referring to everything that is, not just things that are alive. (An fyi...)
–
anortonAug 8 '14 at 15:54

6

I'd include more than just what's alive in the word "creation".
–
Michael HardyAug 8 '14 at 18:07

2

In my opinion, your question is self-contradictory: 'Creation' in the sense you are applying it is an inherently religious concept. Therefore a non-religious alternative (or even one that is merely 'less religious', whatever that might mean) is impossible. Along the same lines, you effectively answered your own question when you commented that "After all, having a creation implies there is also a creator".
–
Erik KowalAug 10 '14 at 3:34

+1 This was going to be my answer as well.
–
Jason CAug 8 '14 at 19:55

4

Doesn't this carry the connotation of "all of the living things in a self-contained eco-system"? That is: wouldn't there be multiple biospheres if there are isolated alien life-forms in other galaxies?
–
Andrew CAug 10 '14 at 6:28

Alien life-forms is cientific, not religious. So, is not part of "The Creation". Considering this will automatically exclude religious connotation.
–
Magno CAug 11 '14 at 11:02

I think the answer is Biota, not Biosphere. While Biota feels like referring to the living organisms themselves, bioSPHERE feels more like referring to the sphere as a whole than referring to what's in the sphere - the living organisms. Saying Biosphere feels like putting all Biota in a box and then talking more about the box than about what's inside. Feels less personal, e.g. like if you talk about Stratosphere, Biosphere etc. in one sentence, like about separate boxes. Just a feeling of non-native speaker though!!
–
TomasOct 26 '14 at 12:21

PS: In ecological articles, the term Biota is used in this context.
–
TomasOct 26 '14 at 12:25

Isn't it also the religious alternative? My understanding is that creation in the religious sense usually includes stuff that's not alive.
–
RupeAug 8 '14 at 10:19

1

@Rupe, are you suggesting that 'life' is a religious word for 'everything that is alive'?
–
MitchAug 8 '14 at 13:43

1

No just highlighting what I saw as some confusion in the question.
–
RupeAug 8 '14 at 14:04

@Rupe: OK. 'Life' is the suggested alternative to 'creation' and so it is the word 'life' that is being described as 'not religious'. That doesn't mean it isn't used in religious contexts, just that it doesn't have the religious connotations when standing alone.
–
MitchAug 8 '14 at 20:13

2

True. I wasn't trying to suggest that the word "life" has religious connotations. Just that it only works as an answer to the request for an alternative to creation if one accepts the question's unusually restrictive definition of the word.
–
RupeAug 8 '14 at 20:24

+1 Nature is the best answer here as an alternative to creation (and not just things that are alive).
–
iamnotmaynardAug 8 '14 at 18:55

Nature has far too many meanings, some religious, some quasi-religious to be useful. In nearly all places where it is used, a different word should be used than Nature to avoid ambiguity.
–
virmaiorAug 9 '14 at 5:34

[mass noun] the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations: the breathtaking beauty of nature.

■ the physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world: it is impossible to change the laws of nature. See also Mother Nature.

Nature can refer to petty much all the same things as creation without any sort of connotation.

This is normally called Oxford Dictionaries Online or ODO. A link helps to establish exactly what is being referred to.
–
Andrew Leach♦Aug 10 '14 at 8:29

That's nice and lovely and all Andrew but it's not from ODO, it's from an app that is called ODE which is short for Oxford Dictionary of English. If ODO and OED is understandable enough then ODE shouldn't be much of a stretch...
–
user3306356Aug 10 '14 at 12:59

In his work on the Ecology of Mind, Gregory Bateson adopts and extends Jung's distinction between Pleroma (the non-living world that is undifferentiated by subjectivity) and Creatura (the living world, subject to perceptual difference, distinction, and information). What Bateson calls the "myth of power" is the epistemologically false application to Creatura of an element of Pleroma (non-living, undifferentiated).

More can be found in Bateson's book Mind and Nature, of which some parts are on the Web
(though the diagrams don't work and there are occasional misretypings).

"the Creation" would most likely include things which are not alive, since most commonly God is seen to have created all things, not just living ones. The secular word would be "universe", which encompasses everything that is.

To refer to all living things, your best option is probably "all living things". Other alternatives (also suggested by others):

Biota - a bit awkward in non-technical conversation, and more often used as a base for compounds (eg. microbiota) than by itself. Technically this word is "meant" to be used with a spatial or temporal boundary.

Biosphere - includes only things that are alive on Earth (and actually sometimes non-living Earth things also), but not eg. little green men on Mars.

Life - easily confused with referring to the concept of life rather than things falling under it. All life somewhat remedies this problem.

Bonus: The three kingdoms, meaning the three known kingdoms of life: Bacteria, Archeae and Eukarya. In principle, modern non-molecular taxonomy should be able to classify everything alive under one of these - though to be sure, living things that aren't made of cells would probably be one of those exceptions that force a redefinition of taxonomy if discovered.

My feeling tells me that there is much bigger difference between Biota and Biosphere. I think the answer to the OP question is Biota, because it refers to the living organisms themselves - while bioSPHERE feels more like referring to the sphere as a whole than referring to what's in the sphere - the living organisms. Saying Biosphere feels like putting all Biota in a box and then talking more about the box than about what's inside. Just a feeling of non-native speaker!!
–
TomasOct 26 '14 at 12:19

Biota are the total collection of organisms of a geographic region or a time period, from local geographic scales and instantaneous temporal scales all the way up to whole-planet and whole-timescale […] spatiotemporal scales. The biota, or biotic component of the Earth make up the biosphere.

ety: [New Latin, from Greek biotē, way of life, from bios, life; see gwei- in Indo-European roots.]

The creation implies an event or act, the scientific equivalent would be the big bang or the origin of the universe for the creation of matter and energy (and possibly space and time) in general. If you're more concerned with the development of living organisms from a non-living chemical soup, an extremely technical term is abiogenesis, but origin of life might be a simpler, less theoretically-weighted, description of that point in time.

All of creation, however, seems to be more the sense you're going after. Non-creationist equivalents are all of existence, all of nature, or simply the Universe and everything in it.

These all encompass all matter, not just living things, (although some people would argue about nature). For living things in particular, the biosphere or all biota are good technical words, but all living things might really be the most specific plain-language description.

This is wrong. What about bacteria and all the simple organisms which are neither flora nor fauna? That would be like saying "apples and pears" instead of "fruits". The term "biota" is the answer.
–
TomasOct 26 '14 at 12:13

None of the replies I have read so far really answer the OP's question. Words like 'biosphere' are not really equivalent to 'creation'. The biosphere describes something that is, 'creation' something that came to be.

Like so much else in occidental society it is difficult to get away from religious vocabulary, since it was upon that that our language was built. Though you may no longer believe in a purposeful 'creator', you will undoubtedly speak of 'creatures', and I see nothing wrong with that. So why is there a problem with 'creation'?

So to answer the question specifically, no, there is not a suitable alternative to 'creation'.

I don't think this answers the question, and should probably be a comment.
–
iamnotmaynardAug 8 '14 at 16:36

1

It should indeed be a comment, but it should also be read. The question is rather vague. I read it as "How would I go about saying '...ever since the creation, ...' without religious connotations?", but almost all answers here take the clarification presented in the question to be the definition of the word requested.
–
MagusAug 8 '14 at 17:15

I don't read the question as vague: OP refers to "everything that is alive", in the present tense.
–
Dan BronAug 8 '14 at 21:12

1

@WS2, I agree the meanings of both "creature" and "sacrifice" have moved beyond religion; the problem is the meaning of "the creation" hasn't. Hence the OP's dilemma and question.
–
Dan BronAug 9 '14 at 1:08

1

@WS2 No, no. Please do not change it. I was poking fun at the hyper-PC crowd’s penchant for knickersnitting over it. For example, the State of Washington passed a law forbidding the use of the word oriental in any government publication. They claim it is offensive to orientals, who themselves deny such a thing. Here in the Great Lakes area of Wisconsin and Minnesota, everybody uses it without any offence at all. It's on the Coasts, especially the left one, where people take extreme umbrage over it. I think they’re silly.
–
tchristAug 10 '14 at 12:50

"Organic" hasn't meant that for almost two centuries. It just means "things that have carbon in them". Certainly there are enormous diamonds out there in space which have never been alive - the etymology of the term is a historical artifact.
–
SuperbestAug 8 '14 at 16:05

@Superbest - organic most definitely still means that - it also has the meaning of containing carbon but the old meaning still exists - plus the new meaning of a method of food production.
–
neilAug 8 '14 at 17:23

In future this word may come back to refer to "non robotic" forms. Like in Spielbergs' A.I. movie: orga and meca.
–
Magno CAug 11 '14 at 11:16

That appears to be referring to the process; the poster seems to be asking for a word referring to the end result.
–
Matt GuttingAug 8 '14 at 20:20

biogenesis specifically refers to the reproduction of living things (whether sexually or asexually). It implies that all living things come from other living things. That really doesn't correspond to creation, which is the origin of life (and the universe in general) out of nothing.
–
AmeliaBRAug 10 '14 at 0:00